Questions of financial and labor costs

Labor Costs
Unfortunately there is nothing in the show that represents current efforts on behalf of students, or the current state of art making in the context of an art school. To mount such a show, what practices are in place to employ, train and model the implications of mounting a show of this magnitude? How are student workers compensated? Is it through Federal Work Study? If so, are those that receive a salary treated or looked at differently because they are part of the administrative staff? If there is such a thing as a training program or an attempt to introduce a model which could be used in real-work situations where is it. If student workers are engaged in mounting a show should they be paid like professional individuals who are contracted just for crucial stages to the exhibition process? Are they protected or are they subject to reprisials if they “step out of line”?

Sources of funding for some aspects of A Lived Practice
(from press release for "A Lived Practice"):

Proximity of Consciousness:
 * Danish Arts Council


 * Dick Blick Art Materials

A Lived Practice symposium: The Chicago Social Practice History publication series: "All programs are made possible in part by a grant from the Illinois Arts Council, a state agency."
 * WeToldThemWealthWouldTrickledDown.jpgated through a Curatorial Research Fellowship from the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts
 * Goethe-Institut Chicago
 * Federal Republic of Germany
 * Italian Cultural Institute of Chicago
 * Salzburg Global Seminar
 * SAIC’s Visiting Artists Program
 * SAIC’s Earl and Brenda Shapiro Center for Research and Collaboration
 * Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts
 * Elizabeth Firestone Graham Foundation.

Impact of Financial Stakeholders
While this show focuses on Chicago's art history, it's interesting to see that financial sponsorship for the show came from diverse international sources. This suggests the international art community's recognition of Chicago's place in social practice history and also increased international awareness of the importance of social practice. Specifically, there are many national institutions from all over the world participating, judging from this list. Clearly they're in support of artists representative of their countries. One might wonder, is the financial sponsorship a mutualistic relationship that elevates both the name of the artist and the nation's place in contemporary art? Furthermore, it is likely that these government cultural bodies have some say in how works of art in the show are exhibited or framed to the public. Is this why there isn't an overtly critical political tone to the show?

It is also interesting to see that the more academic aspect of the show, its publication series, is sponsored by much more local institutions. Is this because the series touches on more Chicago-centric topics in social practice (as the title suggests), and thus there is less personal interest for international stakeholders?

Also, if a show has multiple sources of funding, does that dilute the coherence of the show's content? One can only imagine the amount of tenacity it must take for the curators to navigate so many different stakeholders' interests (including the artists!) in order to ensure that Proximity still manages to convey its vision. An interesting point for further pursuit would be to interview the curators on how their original vision for the show has changed over time, and how they navigated the process.

If you are a private institution operating as a non-profit, does that increase opportunities to leverage foundation support? Hang on, you mean there aren't regulations preventing private institutions of taking advantage of the "non-profit" label? Loophole? Or conspiracy theory?